Indirect treatment comparisons: how to MAIC it right?

Emmanuel Bachy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2023.284534

2024-02-15

Haematologica

Abstract:Not available. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

hematology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparisons: A Simulation Study of Statistical Performance

J. Signorovitch,R. Ayyagari,D. Cheng,E. Q. Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.271

IF: 5.156

2013-01-01

Value in Health

Abstract:When indirectly comparing treatments across separate clinical trials, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) can help avoid bias due to cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics. The approach uses propensity scores to adjust individual patient data from trials of one treatment to match published baseline characteristics from trials of comparator treatments. We assessed the statistical properties of MAIC, including the accuracy of estimated treatment effects and their standard errors, in a simulation study. Each simulation scenario included two randomized controlled trials with a common control arm and a dichotomous outcome. Sample sizes ranged from 125 to 1000 patients per arm. Cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics were simulated to generate low, moderate and high levels of potential bias. For each simulated dataset, MAIC was used to estimate the relative treatment effect using individual patient data from one trial and aggregate data from the other. Estimated treatment effects and standard errors were evaluated for accuracy across 1000 simulations. Indirect comparisons without matching adjustment were evaluated in parallel. By design, indirect comparisons without matching exhibited biases ranging from 10% to 200% of the true treatment effect across simulation scenarios. In contrast, the MAIC estimators exhibited negligible bias, falling within +/- 2% of the true treatment effect when all confounding variables were considered. The sandwich estimator closely approximated the true standard errors, and was slightly conservative, overestimating by as much as 8%, but usually less than 5%. These findings were consistent across the range of investigated sample sizes and levels of confounding. MAIC can remove bias due to observed cross-trial differences and provide reliable assessments of statistical uncertainty for indirect comparisons that combine individual patient data and aggregate data.
The Statistical Performance of Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons

David Cheng,Rajeev Ayyagari,James Signorovitch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.06449

2020-04-08

Abstract:Indirect comparisons of treatment-specific outcomes across separate studies often inform decision-making in the absence of head-to-head randomized comparisons. Differences in baseline characteristics between study populations may introduce confounding bias in such comparisons. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) (Signorovitch et al., 2010) has been used to adjust for differences in observed baseline covariates when the individual patient-level data (IPD) are available for only one study and aggregate data (AGD) are available for the other study. The approach weights outcomes from the IPD using estimates of trial selection odds that balance baseline covariates between the IPD and AGD. With the increasing use of MAIC, there is a need for formal assessments of its statistical properties. In this paper we formulate identification assumptions for causal estimands that justify MAIC estimators. We then examine large sample properties and evaluate strategies for estimating standard errors without the full IPD from both studies. The finite-sample bias of MAIC and the performance of confidence intervals based on different standard error estimators are evaluated through simulations. The method is illustrated through an example comparing placebo arm and natural history outcomes in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Applications,Methodology
A comprehensive review and shiny application on the matching‐adjusted indirect comparison

Ziren Jiang,Joseph C. Cappelleri,Margaret Gamalo,Yong Chen,Neal Thomas,Haitao Chu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1709

2024-02-22

Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract:Population‐adjusted indirect comparison (PAIC) is an increasingly used technique for estimating the comparative effectiveness of different treatments for the health technology assessments when head‐to‐head trials are unavailable. Three commonly used PAIC methods include matching‐adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), simulated treatment comparison (STC), and multilevel network meta‐regression (ML‐NMR). MAIC enables researchers to achieve balanced covariate distribution across two independent trials when individual participant data are only available in one trial. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the MAIC methods, including their theoretical derivation, implicit assumptions, and connection to calibration estimation in survey sampling. We discuss the nuances between anchored and unanchored MAIC, as well as their required assumptions. Furthermore, we implement various MAIC methods in a user‐friendly R Shiny application Shiny‐MAIC. To our knowledge, it is the first Shiny application that implements various MAIC methods. The Shiny‐MAIC application offers choice between anchored or unanchored MAIC, choice among different types of covariates and outcomes, and two variance estimators including bootstrap and robust standard errors. An example with simulated data is provided to demonstrate the utility of the Shiny‐MAIC application, enabling a user‐friendly approach conducting MAIC for healthcare decision‐making. The Shiny‐MAIC is freely available through the link: https://ziren.shinyapps.io/Shiny_MAIC/.

multidisciplinary sciences,mathematical & computational biology
Two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Antonio Remiro-Azócar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01692-9

2022-06-30

Abstract:Anchored covariate-adjusted indirect comparisons inform reimbursement decisions where there are no head-to-head trials between the treatments of interest, there is a common comparator arm shared by the studies, and there are patient-level data limitations. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is the most widely used covariate-adjusted indirect comparison method. MAIC has poor precision and is inefficient when the effective sample size after weighting is small. A modular extension to MAIC, termed two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison (2SMAIC), is proposed. This uses two parametric models. One estimates the treatment assignment mechanism in the study with individual patient data (IPD), the other estimates the trial assignment mechanism. The resulting weights seek to balance covariates between treatment arms and across studies. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle in an indirect comparison performed across two randomized trials and explores the use of weight truncation in combination with MAIC for the first time. Despite enforcing randomization and knowing the true treatment assignment mechanism in the IPD trial, 2SMAIC yields improved precision and efficiency with respect to MAIC in all scenarios, while maintaining similarly low levels of bias. The two-stage approach is effective when sample sizes in the IPD trial are low, as it controls for chance imbalances in prognostic baseline covariates between study arms. It is not as effective when overlap between the trials' target populations is poor and the extremity of the weights is high. In these scenarios, truncation leads to substantial precision and efficiency gains but induces considerable bias. The combination of a two-stage approach with truncation produces the highest precision and efficiency improvements.

Methodology,Applications
Conflating marginal and conditional treatment effects: Comments on 'Assessing the performance of population adjustment methods for anchored indirect comparisons: A simulation study'

Antonio Remiro-Azócar,Anna Heath,Gianluca Baio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8857

2020-12-03

Abstract:In this commentary, we highlight the importance of: (1) carefully considering and clarifying whether a marginal or conditional treatment effect is of interest in a population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison; and (2) developing distinct methodologies for estimating the different measures of effect. The appropriateness of each methodology depends on the preferred target of inference.

Methodology,Applications
Marginalization of Regression-Adjusted Treatment Effects in Indirect Comparisons with Limited Patient-Level Data

Antonio Remiro-Azócar,Anna Heath,Gianluca Baio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.05951

2022-05-11

Abstract:Population adjustment methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) are increasingly used to compare marginal treatment effects when there are cross-trial differences in effect modifiers and limited patient-level data. MAIC is sensitive to poor covariate overlap and cannot extrapolate beyond the observed covariate space. Current outcome regression-based alternatives can extrapolate but target a conditional treatment effect that is incompatible in the indirect comparison. When adjusting for covariates, one must integrate or average the conditional estimate over the population of interest to recover a compatible marginal treatment effect. We propose a marginalization method based on parametric G-computation that can be easily applied where the outcome regression is a generalized linear model or a Cox model. In addition, we introduce a novel general-purpose method based on multiple imputation, which we term multiple imputation marginalization (MIM) and is applicable to a wide range of models. Both methods can accommodate a Bayesian statistical framework, which naturally integrates the analysis into a probabilistic framework. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle for the methods and benchmarks their performance against MAIC and the conventional outcome regression. The marginalized outcome regression approaches achieve more precise and more accurate estimates than MAIC, particularly when covariate overlap is poor, and yield unbiased marginal treatment effect estimates under no failures of assumptions. Furthermore, the marginalized regression-adjusted estimates provide greater precision and accuracy than the conditional estimates produced by the conventional outcome regression, which are systematically biased because the measure of effect is non-collapsible.

Methodology,Applications
Parametric G-computation for Compatible Indirect Treatment Comparisons with Limited Individual Patient Data

Antonio Remiro-Azócar,Anna Heath,Gianluca Baio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1565

2022-05-10

Abstract:Population adjustment methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) are increasingly used to compare marginal treatment effects when there are cross-trial differences in effect modifiers and limited patient-level data. MAIC is based on propensity score weighting, which is sensitive to poor covariate overlap and cannot extrapolate beyond the observed covariate space. Current outcome regression-based alternatives can extrapolate but target a conditional treatment effect that is incompatible in the indirect comparison. When adjusting for covariates, one must integrate or average the conditional estimate over the relevant population to recover a compatible marginal treatment effect. We propose a marginalization method based on parametric G-computation that can be easily applied where the outcome regression is a generalized linear model or a Cox model. The approach views the covariate adjustment regression as a nuisance model and separates its estimation from the evaluation of the marginal treatment effect of interest. The method can accommodate a Bayesian statistical framework, which naturally integrates the analysis into a probabilistic framework. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle and benchmarks the method's performance against MAIC and the conventional outcome regression. Parametric G-computation achieves more precise and more accurate estimates than MAIC, particularly when covariate overlap is poor, and yields unbiased marginal treatment effect estimates under no failures of assumptions. Furthermore, the marginalized regression-adjusted estimates provide greater precision and accuracy than the conditional estimates produced by the conventional outcome regression, which are systematically biased because the measure of effect is non-collapsible.

Methodology,Applications
Uncertain about uncertainty in matching‐adjusted indirect comparisons? A simulation study to compare methods for variance estimation

Conor O. Chandler,Irina Proskorovsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1759

2024-09-27

Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract:In health technology assessment, matching‐adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is the most common method for pairwise comparisons that control for imbalances in baseline characteristics across trials. One of the primary challenges in MAIC is the need to properly account for the additional uncertainty introduced by the matching process. Limited evidence and guidance are available on variance estimation in MAICs. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive Monte Carlo simulation study to evaluate the performance of different statistical methods across 108 scenarios. Four general approaches for variance estimation were compared in both anchored and unanchored MAICs of binary and time‐to‐event outcomes: (1) conventional estimators (CE) using raw weights; (2) CE using weights rescaled to the effective sample size (ESS); (3) robust sandwich estimators; and (4) bootstrapping. Several variants of sandwich estimators and bootstrap methods were tested. Performance was quantified on the basis of empirical coverage probabilities for 95% confidence intervals and variability ratios. Variability was underestimated by CE + raw weights when population overlap was poor or moderate. Despite several theoretical limitations, CE + ESS weights accurately estimated uncertainty across most scenarios. Original implementations of sandwich estimators had a downward bias in MAICs with a small ESS, and finite sample adjustments led to marked improvements. Bootstrapping was unstable if population overlap was poor and the sample size was limited. All methods produced valid coverage probabilities and standard errors in cases of strong population overlap. Our findings indicate that the sample size, population overlap, and outcome type are important considerations for variance estimation in MAICs.

multidisciplinary sciences,mathematical & computational biology
PMU87 MATCHING ADJUSTED INDIRECT COMPARISONS: RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SELECTION OF BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS USED FOR MATCHING

W. Gao,O. Patterson-Lomba,J. Signorovitch,E. Q. Wu,R. Ayyagari

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1248

IF: 5.156

2019-01-01

Value in Health

Abstract:Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) offer an alternative in situations where Bucher comparisons are likely to be biased due to differences in trial populations. MAIC applies weights to the individual patient data (IPD) from one trial, matching a set of baseline characteristics to those in the other trial(s). The selection of the baseline characteristics used for adjustment can impact the reliability of an MAIC. We propose a tool to assist in the selection of baseline characteristics used for adjustment in an MAIC. When deciding whether to include a baseline characteristic, the tool trades off its impact on effective sample size and its impact on the bias of treatment effects. The metric provided by the tool can be used to rank potential sets of baseline characteristics used for matching. We apply this tool to an anchored MAIC comparing the active treatments in two randomized controlled trials. Starting from a recommended set of baseline characteristics to be used for adjustment, the tool included any variables that did not reduce the effective sample size substantially, and excluded variables that did not change the weighted outcome substantially. Using these heuristics led to adequate effective sample size and did not introduce unnecessary uncertainty without substantially impacting estimated treatment effects. For example, excluding a disease severity index from the adjustment had less than 4% impact on the effect size but reduced the standard error of the outcome by about 30%. A set of baseline characteristics without this disease severity index was ranked higher in the recommendation than the set including the disease severity index, when other characteristics in the two sets were the same. The analyses show that improvements to standard error may be possible without an increase in bias, and suggest that statistical tools to identify such situations may be valuable.
Methodological considerations for novel approaches to covariate-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons

Antonio Remiro-Azócar,Anna Heath,Gianluca Baio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.08651

2023-05-26

Abstract:We examine four important considerations in the development of covariate adjustment methodologies for indirect treatment comparisons. Firstly, we consider potential advantages of weighting versus outcome modeling, placing focus on bias-robustness. Secondly, we outline why model-based extrapolation may be required and useful, in the specific context of indirect treatment comparisons with limited overlap. Thirdly, we describe challenges for covariate adjustment based on data-adaptive outcome modeling. Finally, we offer further perspectives on the promise of doubly-robust covariate adjustment frameworks.

Methodology
Advancing unanchored simulated treatment comparisons: A novel implementation and simulation study

Shijie Ren,Sa Ren,Nicky J. Welton,Mark Strong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1718

2024-04-09

Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract:Population‐adjusted indirect comparisons, developed in the 2010s, enable comparisons between two treatments in different studies by balancing patient characteristics in the case where individual patient‐level data (IPD) are available for only one study. Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies increasingly rely on these methods to inform funding decisions, typically using unanchored indirect comparisons (i.e., without a common comparator), due to the need to evaluate comparative efficacy and safety for single‐arm trials. Unanchored matching‐adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and unanchored simulated treatment comparison (STC) are currently the only two approaches available for population‐adjusted indirect comparisons based on single‐arm trials. However, there is a notable underutilisation of unanchored STC in HTA, largely due to a lack of understanding of its implementation. We therefore develop a novel way to implement unanchored STC by incorporating standardisation/marginalisation and the NORmal To Anything (NORTA) algorithm for sampling covariates. This methodology aims to derive a suitable marginal treatment effect without aggregation bias for HTA evaluations. We use a non‐parametric bootstrap and propose separately calculating the standard error for the IPD study and the comparator study to ensure the appropriate quantification of the uncertainty associated with the estimated treatment effect. The performance of our proposed unanchored STC approach is evaluated through a comprehensive simulation study focused on binary outcomes. Our findings demonstrate that the proposed approach is asymptotically unbiased. We argue that unanchored STC should be considered when conducting unanchored indirect comparisons with single‐arm studies, presenting a robust approach for HTA decision‐making.

multidisciplinary sciences,mathematical & computational biology
Direct comparison or indirect comparison via a series of counterfactual decompositions?

Anna Naszodi

2023-03-09

Abstract:We illustrate the point with an empirical analysis of assortative mating in the US, namely, that the outcome of comparing two distant groups can be sensitive to whether comparing the groups directly, or indirectly via a series of counterfactual decompositions involving the groups' comparisons to some intermediate groups. We argue that the latter approach is typically more fit for its purpose.

General Economics
Bayesian model selection on linear mixed-effects models for comparisons between multiple treatments and a control

Lei Gong,James M. Flegal,Stephen R. Spindler,Patricia L. Mote

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1509.07510

2015-09-24

Applications

Abstract:We propose a novel Bayesian model selection technique on linear mixed-effects models to compare multiple treatments with a control. A fully Bayesian approach is implemented to estimate the marginal inclusion probabilities that provide a direct measure of the difference between treatments and the control, along with the model-averaged posterior distributions. Default priors are proposed for model selection incorporating domain knowledge and a component-wise Gibbs sampler is developed for efficient posterior computation. We demonstrate the proposed method based on simulated data and an experimental dataset from a longitudinal study of mouse lifespan and weight trajectories.
Comparative Effectiveness Without Head-to-Head Trials

James E. Signorovitch,Eric Q. Wu,Andrew P. Yu,Charles M. Gerrits,Evan Kantor,Yanjun Bao,Shiraz R. Gupta,Parvez M. Mulani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11538370-000000000-00000

2010-01-01

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:The absence of head-to-head trials is a common challenge in comparative effectiveness research and health technology assessment. Indirect cross-trial treatment comparisons are possible, but can be biased by cross-trial differences in patient characteristics. Using only published aggregate data, adjustment for such biases may be impossible. Although individual patient data (IPD) would permit adjustment, they are rarely available for all trials. However, many researchers have the opportunity to access IPD for trials of one treatment, a new drug for example, but only aggregate data for trials of comparator treatments. We propose a method that leverages all available data in this setting by adjusting average patient characteristics in trials with IPD to match those reported for trials without IPD. Treatment outcomes, including continuous, categorical and censored time-to-event outcomes, can then be compared across balanced trial populations.
Difference-in-Differences with a Misclassified Treatment

Akanksha Negi,Digvijay Singh Negi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.02412

2022-08-04

Abstract:This paper studies identification and estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) in difference-in-difference (DID) designs when the variable that classifies individuals into treatment and control groups (treatment status, D) is endogenously misclassified. We show that misclassification in D hampers consistent estimation of ATT because 1) it restricts us from identifying the truly treated from those misclassified as being treated and 2) differential misclassification in counterfactual trends may result in parallel trends being violated with D even when they hold with the true but unobserved D*. We propose a solution to correct for endogenous one-sided misclassification in the context of a parametric DID regression which allows for considerable heterogeneity in treatment effects and establish its asymptotic properties in panel and repeated cross section settings. Furthermore, we illustrate the method by using it to estimate the insurance impact of a large-scale in-kind food transfer program in India which is known to suffer from large targeting errors.

Econometrics
Detecting Heterogeneity of Intervention Effects in Comparative Judgments

Wolfgang Wiedermann,Ulrich Frick,Edgar C Merkle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01212-z

Abstract:Comparative measures such as paired comparisons and rankings are frequently used to evaluate health states and quality of life. The present article introduces log-linear Bradley-Terry (LLBT) models to evaluate intervention effectiveness when outcomes are measured as paired comparisons or rankings and presents a combination of the LLBT model and model-based recursive partitioning (MOB) to detect treatment effect heterogeneity. The MOB LLBT approach enables researchers to identify subgroups that differ in the preference order and in the effect an intervention has on choice behavior. Applicability of MOB LLBT models is demonstrated using an artificial data example with known data-generating mechanism and a real-world data example focusing on drug-harm perception among music festival visitors. In the artificial data example, the MOB LLBT model is able to adequately recover the "true" (population) model. In the real-world data example, the standard LLBT model confirms the existence of a situational willingness among festival visitors to trivialize drug harm when peer consumption behavior is made cognitively accessible. In addition, MOB LLBT results suggest that this trivialization effect is highly context-dependent and most pronounced for participants with low-to-moderate alcohol intoxication who also proactively contacted a substance counselor at the festival venue. Both data examples suggest that MOB LLBT models allow for more nuanced statements about the effectiveness of interventions. We provide R code examples to implement MOB LLBT models for paired comparisons, rankings, and rating (Likert-type) data.
On the Comparative Analysis of Average Treatment Effects Estimation Via Data Combination

Peng Wu,Shanshan Luo,Zhi Geng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2311.00528

2023-01-01

Abstract:There is growing interest in exploring causal effects in target populations by combining multiple datasets. Nevertheless, most approaches are tailored to specific settings and lack comprehensive comparative analyses across different settings. In this article, within the typical scenario of a source dataset and a target dataset, we establish a unified framework for comparing various settings in causal inference via data combination. We first design six distinct settings, each with different available datasets and identifiability assumptions. The six settings cover a wide range of scenarios in the existing literature. We then conduct a comprehensive efficiency comparative analysis across these settings by calculating and comparing the semiparametric efficiency bounds for the average treatment effect (ATE) in the target population. Our findings reveal the key factors contributing to efficiency gains or losses across these settings. In addition, we extend our analysis to other estimands, including ATE in the source population and the average treatment effect on treated (ATT) in both the source and target populations. Furthermore, we empirically validate our findings by constructing locally efficient estimators and conducting extensive simulation studies. We demonstrate the proposed approaches using a real application to a MIMIC-III dataset as the target population and an eICU dataset as the source population.
IDENTIFICATION AND INFERENCE FOR MARGINAL AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECT ON THE TREATED WITH AN INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE.

Lan Liu,Wang Miao,Baoluo Sun,James Robins,Tchetgen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5705/ss.202017.0196

2019-01-01

Elements

Abstract:In observational studies, treatments are typically not randomized and therefore estimated treatment effects may be subject to confounding bias. The instrumental variable (IV) design plays the role of a quasi-experimental handle since the IV is associated with the treatment and only affects the outcome through the treatment. In this paper, we present a novel framework for identification and inference using an IV for the marginal average treatment effect amongst the treated (ETT) in the presence of unmeasured confounding. For inference, we propose three different semiparametric approaches: (i) inverse probability weighting (IPW), (ii) outcome regression (OR), and (iii) doubly robust (DR) estimation, which is consistent if either (i) or (ii) is consistent, but not necessarily both. A closed-form locally semiparametric efficient estimator is obtained in the simple case of binary IV and outcome and the efficiency bound is derived for the more general case.
An Effective Treatment Approach to Difference-in-Differences with General Treatment Patterns

Takahide Yanagi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.13226

2023-05-29

Abstract:We consider a general difference-in-differences model in which the treatment variable of interest may be non-binary and its value may change in each period. It is generally difficult to estimate treatment parameters defined with the potential outcome given the entire path of treatment adoption, because each treatment path may be experienced by only a small number of observations. We propose an alternative approach using the concept of effective treatment, which summarizes the treatment path into an empirically tractable low-dimensional variable, and develop doubly robust identification, estimation, and inference methods. We also provide a companion R software package.

Econometrics,Methodology
Nonparametric estimators of interventional (transported) direct and indirect effects that accommodate multiple mediators and multiple intermediate confounders

Kara E Rudolph,Nicholas Williams,Ivan Diaz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.08164

2022-12-15

Methodology

Abstract:Mediation analysis is appealing for its ability to improve understanding of the mechanistic drivers of causal effects, but real-world data complexities challenge its successful implementation, including: 1) the existence of post-exposure variables that also affect mediators and outcomes (thus, confounding the mediator-outcome relationship), that may also be 2) multivariate, and 3) the existence of multivariate mediators. Interventional direct and indirect effects (IDE/IIE) accommodate post-exposure variables that confound the mediator-outcome relationship, but currently, no estimator for IDE/IIE exists that allows for both multivariate mediators and multivariate post-exposure intermediate confounders. This, again, represents a significant limitation for real-world analyses. We address this gap by extending two recently developed nonparametric estimators -- one that estimates the IDE/IIE and another that estimates the IDE/IIE transported to a new, target population -- to allow for multivariate mediators and multivariate intermediate confounders simultaneously. We use simulation to examine finite sample performance, and apply these estimators to longitudinal data from the Moving to Opportunity trial. In the application, we walk through a strategy for separating indirect effects into mediator- or mediator-group-specific indirect effects, while appropriately accounting for other, possibly co-occurring intermediate variables.

Indirect treatment comparisons: how to MAIC it right?

Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparisons: A Simulation Study of Statistical Performance

The Statistical Performance of Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons

A comprehensive review and shiny application on the matching‐adjusted indirect comparison

Two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Conflating marginal and conditional treatment effects: Comments on 'Assessing the performance of population adjustment methods for anchored indirect comparisons: A simulation study'

Marginalization of Regression-Adjusted Treatment Effects in Indirect Comparisons with Limited Patient-Level Data

Parametric G-computation for Compatible Indirect Treatment Comparisons with Limited Individual Patient Data

Uncertain about uncertainty in matching‐adjusted indirect comparisons? A simulation study to compare methods for variance estimation

PMU87 MATCHING ADJUSTED INDIRECT COMPARISONS: RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SELECTION OF BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS USED FOR MATCHING

Methodological considerations for novel approaches to covariate-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons

Advancing unanchored simulated treatment comparisons: A novel implementation and simulation study

Direct comparison or indirect comparison via a series of counterfactual decompositions?

Bayesian model selection on linear mixed-effects models for comparisons between multiple treatments and a control

Comparative Effectiveness Without Head-to-Head Trials

Difference-in-Differences with a Misclassified Treatment

Detecting Heterogeneity of Intervention Effects in Comparative Judgments

On the Comparative Analysis of Average Treatment Effects Estimation Via Data Combination

IDENTIFICATION AND INFERENCE FOR MARGINAL AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECT ON THE TREATED WITH AN INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE.

An Effective Treatment Approach to Difference-in-Differences with General Treatment Patterns

Nonparametric estimators of interventional (transported) direct and indirect effects that accommodate multiple mediators and multiple intermediate confounders